3rd April 2003 at 08:28 PM Messenger said this in Post #17
Maybe silly but not silly enough to list a website that goes totally against the stand I'm trying to take. 
Did you happen to read the article and how much proof there is that Iraq was involve in 9/11 or as you say 11/9...Why not read from the very website that you showed us???
Anyway your stand doesn't amount to a hill of beans cause you don't even have an understanding of the stand your taking. Educate yourself a little and then we'll talk. 
Love and God Bless 
Ever heard the expression "read between the lines..."?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
From the New American Century Statements Of Principles"we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;"
So they're saying that ties with democratic countries should be strengthened if they are "allies".... (i.e. probably not France, etc)
It says to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values (i.e. France, etc).
I wonder what "challenge" means.... it could possibly mean that hostile (dissenting) regimes would have a regime change...
"it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our <B>greatness</B> in the next."
"we need to increase defense spending <B>significantly</B>"
Your defence spending in recent years is almost equal to the rest of the world combined already.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Ten of the founding members of this organization now hold posts in the current Bush administration. (V.P., SecDef and DepSecDef, just to name three.) Also, please note the endorsement of one letter by the Heritage Foundation...and the inclusion of Edwin Meese, of The Federalist Society...among other interesting names within that particular group....especially the first two.
1. The Iraq war has been in the works since 1998 and was then as now primarily about Saddams threat to US control of the Persian Gulf arena and not about a threat to the securtiy if the US. Iraq is the key to control of the arab world.
2. It is also the first step in the new policy of unilateral action that the US has embarked upon in order to strenghten its positon as the only superpower in the world and allow for further unilateral actions in all areas of US foreign policies.
Those behind the New American Century are convinced, and not without historical cause(Japan and Germany), that the only way to advance true democracy is through American leadership because your claimed ultimate goal is a peaceful and harmonious world open to free trade and capitalism rather than physical conquest. I suspect that they believe that America missed the opportunity to do this immediately after WWII. The events of 9/11, coupled with the religious fervor of your current government, has given them a prime opportunity to invoke their vision of a "Pax Americana" on the world...using pre-emptive force of arms. Not to mention their economic interests in the area...
Here's a good article:
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html#top
Another:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/realitycheck030317.html
